Summary
A writ order setting aside a government mining-related order solely on counsel’s statement was vacated after the Union explained that incorrect official briefing produced that statement. Since the High Court had not decided the controversy on merits, the Supreme Court restored the writ petition for a fresh merits hearing, with liberty to amend pleadings. The pending review petition was disposed of; the Supreme Court determined no substantive entitlement to an exploration licence.
Issues
- Whether the writ petition should be restored where its disposal rested on a statement resulting from incorrect briefing.
- How the pending review and subsequent developments should be addressed.
Held
- The challenged writ order expressly rested only on the Union counsel’s statement and contained no merits determination. The Union’s explanation of incorrect briefing justified a fresh hearing in the interests of all concerned. (¶¶ 8–9, 12, 14–15)
- Restoration allowed the High Court to decide the controversy on its merits and the parties to amend their pleadings. The Supreme Court did not adjudicate the substantive issues or the effect of the other batch’s merits decision. (¶¶ 12, 18–19)
- Once the writ order was set aside and the petition restored, the Union’s pending review petition stood disposed of. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Union’s application and appeal allowed. High Court order set aside; W.P.No.5734 of 2016 restored for fresh merits disposal with liberty to amend pleadings. Review Petition No.103 of 2018 disposed of; all substantive merits left open.